User talk:Alecmconroy/Opus Dei

Comment

Both the current version and your proposed version do fit GA standards, providing you provide as much name, title, publisher, place and date for the references that link to internet resources. This standard is more focused on format than content. Typically, if a text is easy enough for an average reader to understand, has sufficient and valid looking inline citations, seems complete to a reader and doesn't impose a judgment on the matter upon the reader, it will pass GA. FA is a whole 'nother matter. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is an improvement, yes. I rather not get into the actual discussion on the page, however, since I have other things to fry. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 15:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work

Thanks for the effort in this rewrite and the invitation to read and contribute. This is a significant improvement.

While I saw a couple minor places where I could suggest an edit, I think it better for now at least to try to get it accepted as a whole and then let everyone have a chance to tweak it. I will reread the main Talk page to see what some of the issues are.

Baccyak4H 19:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]